Great leaders make the tough decisions, not the safe and popular decision. That is why the CFP is good, but not great. But it's the system we have and it's better than the BCS system and the polling system.
Their annual objective is to select the four best teams in all of college football and the committee had a tougher than normal job this year. Picking the best four will only get more difficult each year - meaning an 8-team playoff system is looming sooner than we think. I'm saying by 2026.
The committee was glad Georgia didn't beat Bama because that would have forced them to put Georgia AND Bama in the playoff for the second consecutive year. But - they did not expect Georgia to take Bama down to the wire. Georgia proved to be the only team this season that scared Bama - right up until the last minute. But, true to form, it was another "victory for Satan"...I mean "Saban".
(BTW - kudos to all the Georgia players. They performed their best game of the season. And to the coaching staff as well who had the players ready and a great game plan. Just a few less coaching blips down the stretch and the Dawgs would have pulled that off).
What the CFP Got Right
Sure - take the undefeateds for that is a major accomplishment...as long as their opponents were worthy. (Although if you put Notre Dame in then why not Central Florida?). Deciding between Georgia, Oklahoma and Ohio State had to be tough. But look at the numbers, the odds, the SOS, the stats - not the conference champion, not the number in the L column.
They took the easy path...the decision that would receive less backlash...the decision that kept us from a third Georgia-Bama matchup in less than a year...the decision that pits the top two Heisman picks against each other - instead of the decision that puts two of the four best teams back on the same field.
In other words - they did right by most college football fans, not by the teams and players. They conceded to those with SEC fatigue and Bama fatigue. (Hey - if you really want to concede to the fans, give UCF their shot and settle that question).
What They Did Wrong
Does a close loss to #1 Alabama really count against you when no other team came close?
How does it compare to the OU loss to 9-4 Texas or the OSU loss to 6-6 Purdue and near miss at 5-7 Maryland?
If #1 Nick Saban says he does not want to play Georgia again, that should almost be reason enough to put them back in for a rematch. Did the committee bow down to Saban?
Yes, Georgia lost to Alabama on Saturday. So would anyone else who played the Tide — probably by a wider margin. For those who opposed a rematch of an instant classic, congrats on the potential mismatch you get instead. But this is what we should have expected from the College Football Playoff selection committee. On Selection Sunday, the most rigid, risk-averse, politically sensitive, establishmentarian sport on the planet simply did what comes naturally.
Their annual objective is to select the four best teams in all of college football and the committee had a tougher than normal job this year. Picking the best four will only get more difficult each year - meaning an 8-team playoff system is looming sooner than we think. I'm saying by 2026.
The committee was glad Georgia didn't beat Bama because that would have forced them to put Georgia AND Bama in the playoff for the second consecutive year. But - they did not expect Georgia to take Bama down to the wire. Georgia proved to be the only team this season that scared Bama - right up until the last minute. But, true to form, it was another "victory for Satan"...I mean "Saban".
What the CFP Got Right
Sure - take the undefeateds for that is a major accomplishment...as long as their opponents were worthy. (Although if you put Notre Dame in then why not Central Florida?). Deciding between Georgia, Oklahoma and Ohio State had to be tough. But look at the numbers, the odds, the SOS, the stats - not the conference champion, not the number in the L column.
They took the easy path...the decision that would receive less backlash...the decision that kept us from a third Georgia-Bama matchup in less than a year...the decision that pits the top two Heisman picks against each other - instead of the decision that puts two of the four best teams back on the same field.
In other words - they did right by most college football fans, not by the teams and players. They conceded to those with SEC fatigue and Bama fatigue. (Hey - if you really want to concede to the fans, give UCF their shot and settle that question).
What They Did Wrong
Does a close loss to #1 Alabama really count against you when no other team came close?
How does it compare to the OU loss to 9-4 Texas or the OSU loss to 6-6 Purdue and near miss at 5-7 Maryland?
If #1 Nick Saban says he does not want to play Georgia again, that should almost be reason enough to put them back in for a rematch. Did the committee bow down to Saban?
The current spreads for the two playoff matchups are double-digits. If the right choices were made I'm guessing we'd see single digit spreads.
Oklahoma's Heisman winner and high powered offense will be fun to watch initially - but Bama's defense will outlast them and Bama's offense will score at will on their 108th ranked defense. Only a team that plays both sides stands a chance against Bama (as Georgia proved). You can't just outscore them as is the MO of Oklahoma.
Per Pat Forde (Yahoo!): Yes, Georgia lost to Alabama on Saturday. So would anyone else who played the Tide — probably by a wider margin. For those who opposed a rematch of an instant classic, congrats on the potential mismatch you get instead. But this is what we should have expected from the College Football Playoff selection committee. On Selection Sunday, the most rigid, risk-averse, politically sensitive, establishmentarian sport on the planet simply did what comes naturally.